Editorial Guidelines | How We Rate Online Casinos

These guidelines describe how a casino gets a score on this site, who decides it and what would make us change it. They apply to every review we publish, and we expect readers to hold us to them.

The six-step review protocol

Register as an ordinary player. Malaysian details, a Malaysian payment method, no press account and no operator contact. If the site asks for verification documents, we submit them and time the response.
Fund the account with our own money. Typically MYR 100–300, through whichever rails the cashier offers — FPX, DuitNow, an e-wallet or USDT. Every fee, failed attempt and rejected card is recorded.
Verify the licence at the register. We look up the stated number with the named regulator rather than trusting a footer image. Unverifiable claims are reported as unverifiable and cost the brand points.
Play the bonus through. We calculate the true turnover requirement, identify which games are excluded or weighted down, and check whether a maximum-cashout clause caps what the offer can ever return.
Withdraw and time it end to end. The clock starts when we submit the request and stops when funds arrive, repeated on different days of the week so weekend and holiday behaviour is captured.
Test support under pressure. One straightforward question and one awkward one about bonus terms. We log the wait, the language handling and whether the answer matched the written terms.

How the score is weighted

Every brand is marked out of ten in six categories. The weighting reflects what costs players real money when it goes wrong, which is why licensing and payouts outrank game count:

Category	Weight	What moves the number
Licensing & security	25%	Verifiable licence number, named operating company, encryption, independent RNG audits
Banking & payout speed	25%	Measured withdrawal times, method coverage, fees, minimum thresholds, pending periods
Bonus fairness	20%	Rollover multiplier, game weighting, maximum cashout caps, clarity of the written terms
Game range & providers	15%	Studio quality, published RTP figures, depth across slots, live tables and sportsbook
Mobile experience	8%	App stability, stream quality on mobile data, cashier usability on a phone
Customer support	7%	Response time, accuracy against the terms, availability and language handling

A large bonus never rescues a weak payout record. A site that pays reliably and documents its licence will always outrank one offering a bigger headline percentage it makes hard to claim.

What disqualifies a brand

We will not recommend a casino that refuses a verified withdrawal without a term to point to, publishes a licence number that does not exist on the regulator's register, alters bonus terms retroactively, or has unresolved payout complaints we can substantiate. Such brands still get reviewed — they simply score accordingly, and the reasons appear in the text.

Independence and funding

We earn affiliate commission through links on this site. Commission rates are not a scoring input, operators cannot buy placement, and no brand sees a review before publication. We do not sell backlinks, guest posts or ranking positions. The funding model is set out in full on our about page.

Authorship and verification

Every review names the writer and a second team member who independently re-ran the licence lookup, the bonus arithmetic and at least one withdrawal cycle. Where the two disagree, publication waits. Roles and specialisms are listed on our editorial team page.

Updates and corrections

Reviews are re-tested when bonus terms, banking options or licensing change, and at least twice a year regardless. Each carries a visible last-updated date. Readers who spot an error can report it through our contact page; we verify every report ourselves and publish confirmed corrections with a fresh date rather than editing quietly. The evidence standards behind all of this are described in why trust us.

Last reviewed: October 2026 · Next scheduled review: April 2027